Tracey: The Government Keeps Lying To Us About Ukraine; Where Is The Outrage?
Tracey: The Government Keeps Lying To Us About Ukraine; Where Is The Outrage?
BY TYLER DURDEN
Authored by Michael Tracey, op-ed via Newsweek.com,
On June 4, a group referring to itself as the "Polish Volunteer Corps" issued a boastful announcement confirming its participation in a series of cross-border ground offensives into Russia.
News of these audacious raids was jarring enough, given the many prior assurances of U.S. and Ukrainian war planners, who insisted no attacks would be carried out inside Russian territory.
It was all the more conspicuous that the incursion units were apparently comprised of Polish soldiers.
Poland, of course, is not only a NATO member state, but the NATO member state with which the U.S. has most assiduously aligned itself since Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine (Polish government officials deny any formal connection to the "Polish Volunteer Corps").
So the raids raised an obvious, yet oft-neglected question: Just what the hell is U.S. policy in Ukraine?
If you turn on the TV, you'll find pundits on every channel loyally reciting from memory the broad parameters of the U.S. mission—at least as it's being conveyed in daily rhetorical flourishes by Biden Administration officials, assorted Congressional chest-thumpers, and brave think tank warriors.
Freedom and autocracy are locked in a great cosmic battle of good versus evil, or so goes the usual storyline—most often narrated with a degree of moral complexity that can be generously compared to a lower-tier Marvel Movie.
But, apart from this steady stream of heavily recycled platitudes, was it ever plainly disclosed to Americans—the chief financial sponsors of the Ukraine war effort- the scope of the war effort they've found themselves subsidizing would eventually expand to include platoons of Polish soldiers marching straight into Russia?
Did anyone back in Washington, D.C. sign off on this, or was there ever an opportunity granted for public consideration of its potentially foreboding implications?
At least in theory, the U.S. is treaty-bound to come to the defense of Poland in the event of armed attack.
And while Poland may nominally disavow the Polish Volunteer Corps, a Polish journalist writing for Poland's largest digital publication says, he was in attendance at a founding organizational meeting in Kyiv this past February, during which the unit was established not as a ragtag group of untested amateurs, but as an elite "sabotage and reconnaissance" force—which from the get-go was "reporting directly to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine."
Per this account, the unit was to consist of Poland's "most experienced soldiers," with notable imprecision as to where specifically those soldiers hailed from.
.
.
Then there's the fact that shortly before the formation of the "Polish Volunteer Corps," a cross-coalition bill was submitted to the Polish parliament which would make it legal for Polish nationals to fight in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The war against Russia was to be recognized as "a special situation from the point of view of the national security of the Republic of Poland," the text reads, "requiring non-standard political and legislative actions on the part of the state."
The "Polish Volunteer Corps" has been conducting joint operations with the "Russian Volunteer Corps," another fully integrated "special unit within the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine"—euphemistically referred to in "Western" media headlines with plausible-deniability monikers like "Pro-Ukraine group of partisans."
Given how these ostensibly unattached "partisans" have been bragging about taking Russian hostages and otherwise getting themselves involved in increasingly spectacular, provocative attacks, one understands why Ukraine might wish to sustain plausible deniability.
"The ground war has come to Russia," proclaimed one Polish state-backed media organ at the news that their soldiers had breached the border.
For many, the footage provided an occasion for rapturous joy, awash as they are in the primal euphoria of armed retribution.
Meanwhile, these elite soldiers billed as "volunteers" have been razing Russian border settlements with U.S.-provided weaponry, according to the New York Times and Washington Post.
The units "lobbed shells and missiles on residential areas," the Times reported, and they appeared to be aiming their attacks at "no apparent military target."
Convoys of armored vehicles called MRAPs, initially produced for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, were observed barreling into Russia from Ukraine, with still no explanation forthcoming as to how precisely they wound up there.
Maybe someone in Kyiv just happened to leave a garage full of U.S. supplied armored vehicles unlocked.
Either way, the Ukraine military was conclusively shown to have used U.S. weapons to attack Russia—the very thing President Biden and other administration officials have emphatically maintained they do not support and are not enabling.
Strangely though, this revelation of systematic government deception doesn't seem to have moved the needle much in terms of the wider debate over U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
Donald Trump could misstate the temperature outside by half-a-degree Farenheit and the entire U.S. media would be falling over themselves to piously accuse him of "lying"—but pile up mounds of incontrovertible evidence that Americans have been chronically deceived about a sprawling U.S. military intervention, and you'll mostly get eye-rolls from the savvy-minded commentariat.
That is, if you're fortunate enough to be spared the standard sneering accusations of "Russian propagandist."
Speaking of claims that might arguably be considered "propaganda," almost exactly one year ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky embarked on a U.S. media tour promising Americans from the bottom of his heart that "We are not planning to attack Russia."
These claims were echoed simultaneously by President Biden, who insisted that "We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders."
Yet, here we are a year later, and there's no longer any reasonable doubt that Ukraine is "striking beyond its borders," and in increasingly aggressive fashion—from the cross-border raids to the drone-strike on the Kremlin to the bombing barrage on a residential Moscow neighborhood.
And that's only a smattering of examples from the past several weeks.
Still, it's harder than one might expect to rouse much critical interest—especially among a media that has been politically, ideologically, and emotionally invested in Ukraine's glorious war-fighting cause from the outset.
One perfect example of late was a CNN article in which "senior U.S. officials" were reported confiding that while they had "condemned the strikes inside Russia," they of course privately "believe the cross-border attacks are a smart military strategy."
A state official saying one thing in public but another in private used to be the most surefire sign of official deceit a journalist could hope to uncover.
Yet CNN seemed to just let it flow by like a gentle spring breeze, almost as though they were actually impressed with the guile of the "senior U.S. officials" they'd been given the honor of anonymously paraphrasing.
As it stands, the U.S. government continuously pelts the American people with provable untruths in service of maintaining a war policy that bears almost no resemblance to how it was initially presented.
And in the sectors of society allegedly tasked with scrutinizing government conduct, this is mostly met with a shrug.
How much more extreme does the deception need to get before sustained pushback is no longer avoidable?
If Polish soldiers launching a self-proclaimed "ground war" in Russia isn't enough to rattle off the complacency, one shudders to think how severe of a shock would be necessary.
* * *
Michael Tracey is an independent reporter with Substack. Follow him on Twitter @mtracey.
Views: 33
Comment
-
Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 19, 2023 at 12:32pm
-
Came across this comment from a reader and while I have no idea whether it's true, given all that has been going on, I don't think I can dismiss it out of hand:
You do realise they “left” all that military equipment in Afghanistan, in exchange for a yuge payment,….right?
Biggest “illrgal” arms sales in history.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/06/18/the-deep-state...
-
-
Think about.
*** One can easily argue the Deep State per se’ was looking for notes, information, contacts, tips and hints of discussions that took place between Trump and foreign leaders, that may have actually exposed the mechanisms of DC money and policy laundering.
*** President Trump was violating institutional norms. He was not following the unwritten rules of the DC bureaucracy; a political system that is predicated on maintenance of a financial system where US policy is promoted with laundered dollars that flow back to the politicians.
*** Think about the apoplexy amid a DC system built on selling foreign policy and gaining affluence, when suddenly there is a guy in the office of the President who has never made a dime from this network and financial construct. Think about how the DC Democrats and Republicans would view Trump from the perspective of his personal engagement with foreign government officials who know the dirt on those same DC Democrats and Republicans. Think about the fear inside the beltway as a result of this.
*** Think about a DC system that is built upon leverage and blackmail worrying about a President who might gain leverage and blackmail with evidence of their corrupt endeavors. What would this DC system do to make sure that evidence, if it existed, was never used?Think about an elitist and very eco-chambered DC political system viewing President Trump through the prism of a vulgarian man who will say anything, expose anything, and discuss anything without curtailment or consideration for the collateral damage his words may create. Think about the palpable fear that would reverberate amid a professional political class who have created this system for their own financial benefit.
Does the desperation of NARA and the DC political establishment take on a new perspective?
Weblink: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/06/18/the-deep-state...
-
-
The Deep State Document Hunt Against Donald Trump in Context
June 18, 2023
After reading the entire 75-page transcript of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) testimony to congress [READ HERE], a testimonial that almost no one in the mainstream news has written about, issues surrounding the document search against President Trump take on some new context.The NARA officials are essentially professional DC bureaucrats with a mission to look out for the best interests of the DC system they support. It is very clear from their opinion; Donald Trump was considered an outsider to the DC system of government – and that baseline established the framework for why and how NARA took such extreme processes with President Trump.
President Trump did not turn over the letter left to him by President Obama, nor did President Trump turn over the 27 letters exchanged between himself and North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un. NARA was looking for these along with other documents pertaining to President Trump engaging in discussions with other foreign leaders, and NARA was angry about the perceived lack of respect shown by Trump toward their endeavor.However, when you take the current DC establishment system, look at the history of the Trump administration engagement in foreign policy, then overlay that dynamic with the gatekeeping responsibilities outlined by NARA, what you may discover is an entirely different prism through which to view the DC motives.
One can easily argue the Deep State per se’ was looking for notes, information, contacts, tips and hints of discussions that took place between Trump and foreign leaders, that may have actually exposed the mechanisms of DC money and policy laundering.
Consider the NARA apoplexy around the Trump-Kim letters as outlined on pages 43 & 44 of their testimony. However, expand your perspective to get larger than simply the Trump-Kim letters.NARA officials view themselves, their role, as more important than the President of the United States, that is very clear. NARA officials consider themselves “gatekeepers” to government information. The gatekeepers were not happy with President Trump not following protocols when he was not in office. An example from media:
The Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported Sunday that President Donald Trump’s confiscation of the translator’s notes from a one-on-one conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2017 was “unusual.” This is incorrect. It was unprecedented. There is nothing like it in the annals of presidential history.
It is also truly unusual that Trump failed to bring in a note taker, along with his translator, during his meetings with Putin, as almost every other president has done when meeting with foreign heads of state since the end of World War II. Usually the note taker is an official or aide with deep background in the subject under discussion.
[…] There are good reasons for presidents to bring a note taker with them to such meetings. First, they want a record of what was said, both to remind themselves later of what happened and to confirm or dispute some later account of the meeting, either by the foreign leader or some reporter. Second, the president’s national security officials want to know what was said so that they can orient policy accordingly. Third, historians value these notes, once they’re declassified, as a record of behind-the-scenes U.S. foreign policy. (link)
President Trump was violating institutional norms. He was not following the unwritten rules of the DC bureaucracy; a political system that is predicated on maintenance of a financial system where US policy is promoted with laundered dollars that flow back to the politicians.Think about the risk that DC viewed from Trump’s processes that violated their norms. Think about the meetings they would not know about. Think about the conversations that might take place without their knowledge.
Think about Vladimir Putin (Russia), Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (Egypt), Mohammed Bin Salmon (Saudi), Viktor Orban (Hungary), or even Lopez-Obrador (Mexico), talking openly to President Trump about how their nations were told to engage with U.S. political systems via the State Dept., or functional politicians on various committees.
Think about the apoplexy amid a DC system built on selling foreign policy and gaining affluence, when suddenly there is a guy in the office of the President who has never made a dime from this network and financial construct. Think about how the DC Democrats and Republicans would view Trump from the perspective of his personal engagement with foreign government officials who know the dirt on those same DC Democrats and Republicans. Think about the fear inside the beltway as a result of this.
Consider yet another example from 2018:
2018 – President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held their first-ever meeting, and there may never be a full record of what was said.
After meeting shortly after 9 a.m. (local time) for a handshake and photo-op, the two leaders entered a library at Capella Hotel on Singapore’s Sentosa Island to begin a one-on-one bilateral meeting. The two men were each accompanied only by an interpreter, raising concerns among experts.
Suzanne DiMaggio, who facilitated the first official discussions between North Korea and the Trump administration last year, recently said that without aides present “the fear is that he [Trump] might give away too much.”
But while Trump, and Kim, regularly stray off diplomatic scripts, a larger risk may be that there may be no full transcript, public or secret, of what the two leaders discussed. (link)
Think about a DC system that is built upon leverage and blackmail worrying about a President who might gain leverage and blackmail with evidence of their corrupt endeavors. What would this DC system do to make sure that evidence, if it existed, was never used?
Think about an elitist and very eco-chambered DC political system viewing President Trump through the prism of a vulgarian man who will say anything, expose anything, and discuss anything without curtailment or consideration for the collateral damage his words may create. Think about the palpable fear that would reverberate amid a professional political class who have created this system for their own financial benefit.
Does the desperation of NARA and the DC political establishment take on a new perspective?
Weblink:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/06/18/the-deep-state...
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine